It's a year away, but the first trailer for the Hobbit is on the interwebs! http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/ (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/)
Yay. :mjb:
That is an awesome trailer, lots of good things there. Looks like the same quality we got in LoTR, and they even are doing the dwarves' song. Very much looking forward to this.
Looks good. Was this suppose to be a two part movie or just one long one?
At last report, still a two parter. I'm interested is seeing on how they are going to change (or ruin) it since I read that some LOTR chracters are going to be in it. Galadrial and Legolas I think.
Galadrial is shown in the trailers. Legolas should be there. He is the son of the king of the wood elves featured heavily in the Hobbit, and his sons are mentioned as being present several times. Legolas is one of his sons, hence he should be there for at least a cameo.
And it is still 2 movies. This is the first one, The Hobbit--an Unexpected Journey, and the next one will be The Hobbit--There and Back Again.
The trailer looks good, and I love the story, of course....but Peter Jackson lost my support forever with Return of the King.
Oh, Benton ::shakes head::
The Hobbit is going to be two movies, with the actions of Gandalf that happen off-camera in the novel but that are described in Lord of the Rings being included.
Return of the King? I thought it was as good as any of the others. You aren't sore about the whole ghost thing are you? At least they changed their minds about having Sauron himself come out to duel Aragon at the end. They actually kept that scene, they just inserted a troll instead.
It looks good. The only thing that had me a little Meh was the part where Galadriel was Glomming on Galdalf's face.
I actually prefer reading The Hobbit over The Lord of the Rings because it's a simple adventure story at the end of the day. I'd rather not see the story over-blown into a multi-part cinematic epic that will function as a prequel to another epic. LotR only got 1 movie per book (although if you watch the Extended Editions on DVD, it kinda feels like the length of two films per book), so Hobbit shouldn't be drawn out.
However, I do admit I'm curious to see those "never before seen" Gandalf exploits brought to life.
Denethor.
Faramir.
The ghosts were just symptomatic of the ills of that movie.
While I agree that Denethor did get the shaft in Return of the King, the ghost stuff was goofy, and that RotK had the most and worst changes (particularly in the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline) from the book of all the films, I don't remember any particularly about Faramir. Most of the changes I remember about Faramir took place in the Two Towers film.
Despite getting a lot wrong, they got enough right that RotK is still a great movie. Writing Peter Jackson off as dead to you because he mishandled a few components of a massive, complicated and nearly 12-hour movie (in the extended editions) is a ridiculously negative outlook. So much is right about the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy that I can easily overlook what is wrong, and be excited about the Hobbit.
Well to be fair, my sister so hated the Faramir thing in Two Towers that she refuses to see or have anything else to do with any of the movies ever again. Even mention the movies and she starts ranting about Faramir. And this from a person that does NOT rant about anything.
I sat through Fellowship in the theater but when I borrowed Two Towers I shut that off after 5 minutes. I won't even consider watching Return of the King. Making Arwen a grrrrrl, implying that Gandalf was a pot-head, Saruman hatching Uruk from cocoons, Elrond being an angry jerk... it's just... ugh! With Peter Jackson at the helm, this movie is dead to me.
After reading these posts, I have to go and read the books
After reading these posts, I'm glad I couldn't even get through the first book.
It left me being totally fine with the LotR movies.
Quote from: UnkoMan on December 26, 2011, 05:59:18 PM
After reading these posts, I'm glad I couldn't even get through the first book.
It left me being totally fine with the LotR movies.
Hey, I love the books, and (mostly) love the movies. The two are different animals, like
always with adaptations.
Talavar, that's the attitude a lot of folks have, but I don't buy it. There's good and there's bad. If you're going to tell a story, tell the story. If you want to do your own thing, do that. That's the same problem I had with Prince Caspian. If you want to tell a story about fantasy creatures attacking a castle, tell that story, but if you want to tell C.S. Lewis' story, tell it. Not everything translates directly, but these guys tend to throw the source out the window to follow either their own ego or some mistaken idea of what people can accept. The blatant contempt Peter Jackson shows for his audience as he talks about the LoTR films in their commentaries (especially Return of the King) is enough by itself to give me pause about supporting his films.
Aside from the (to me) deeper issue of Jackson's betrayal of his source, I didn't find all that much to like in RoTK on its own merits as a movie. It seemed to me to be a pretty flawed film, at times beautiful, at other times terrible.
Unko, you make me sad.
JeyNyce, you won't regret it. They're three of the best books written in the twentieth century.
YL, you missed the really bad stuff in RoTK. It's a shame, because Fellowship was an amazing film.
ROTK was certainly an odd animal, and there's really no excuse for it... they had so much longer to polish that movie then any of the others, that the errors made are all the more head-scratchingly bizarre. Putting aside the changes from the source (which aren't relevant... I'm sorry, but I don't care about whether something was different then in the source as long as it works in the context of the film. Aragorn could have been leading an army of pink centaurs into battle and I would not have cared as long as it made sense in context.) the editing, pacing, and quality of the film compared to the other two is just choppy. Especially Aragorn's battle speech... whoever edited the sound on that thing should be fired from movies in general. I cringe at that scene time I hear it. Aragorn's voice fluctuates from a manly, kingly baritone to a bizzarely high pitched squeak... is Aragorn going through puberty while fighting the evil hordes of Sauron? WTF.
That said, I have enormous respect for many of the actors in this film, so I'll still go and see it. That, and truthfully I've always liked Hobbit more than LotR in general anyway.
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 31, 2011, 03:25:20 AM
Talavar, that's the attitude a lot of folks have, but I don't buy it. There's good and there's bad. If you're going to tell a story, tell the story. If you want to do your own thing, do that. That's the same problem I had with Prince Caspian. If you want to tell a story about fantasy creatures attacking a castle, tell that story, but if you want to tell C.S. Lewis' story, tell it. Not everything translates directly, but these guys tend to throw the source out the window to follow either their own ego or some mistaken idea of what people can accept. The blatant contempt Peter Jackson shows for his audience as he talks about the LoTR films in their commentaries (especially Return of the King) is enough by itself to give me pause about supporting his films.
Aside from the (to me) deeper issue of Jackson's betrayal of his source, I didn't find all that much to like in RoTK on its own merits as a movie. It seemed to me to be a pretty flawed film, at times beautiful, at other times terrible.
I haven't listened to the commentaries, so I'm just speaking from the films themselves, and the films do tell the story of Lord of the Rings. What was thrown out the window in the films from the original source? Off the top of my head, I can think of a few: Tom Bombadil, the Barrowdowns (largely necessitated by the removal of Bombadil), Glorfindel, Elrond's sons, Radagast the Brown, Denethor's use of a palantir, and the scouring of the Shire. None of these really effect the larger story, except perhaps the Scouring. I agree that Denethor is poorly used in RotK (film), but it's largely irrelevant. Radagast the Brown and Elrond's sons maybe get six lines of dialogue between them. The scouring of the Shire though, losing it does effect the thematic ending of the novel, but I think enough of a sense of loss is generated in the film's 'epilogue' of Frodo leaving that the film stands up pretty well without it.
The rest are tweaks - changes of the source (without outright removing or throwing things away), and if you made a movie that had only these changes, and tried to pass it off as an original product, your children's children would end up in debt to the Tolkien estate. Still, most of the changes in Return of the King do bother me to some extent - it definitely is the worst of the three films for those sorts of changes. That having been said, there are a lot of great moments committed to film - Theoden's speech before their charge into battle, the desperate defence of Minas Tirith, Sam's bravery, and everything after the ring goes into the fire. Enough is done well - and so very well - that I can forgive and overlook errors of corporate mismanagement, distrust of the larger audience, and errors of simple judgement, and remain very excited for the film
adaptation of The Hobbit.
Talavar said what I was thinking, and far more eloquently then I even could.
There were in fact numerous other planned changes that were backed off on as the movie went in development because Jackson decided to stay closer to the book. Off the top of my head there was Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep (part of their wanting a romance in the films. They settled for flashbacks instead, flashbacks based strongly on the appendices and other official material) and Aragorn dueling with Sauron at the Towers of the Teeth (scene was left in the movie, but Sauron was replaced with a troll) There was a lot of other stuff too that they backed off on.
As for the scouring of the Shire, that was to keep the ending as short of possible. Audiences don't want to sit through 30 minutes or more of ending, and the book has a LOT of ending stuff. That's the same reason they removed the epilogue that had actually been filmed showing the fate of the characters. I'm quite disappointed that they didn't add that back into the extended version though.
Well, honestly, the Scouring of the Shire could have been an entire other film. Yeah, without it you really lose a lot of the impact of the narrative about the cost of war that Tolkien brought home in that story. However, you really couldn't do that terribly well in the film. The loss of the Scouring was something I expected, something that saddened me, but also something that I understood. As for other changes, I think you're missing something of the point Talavar. Tom Bombadil can be excised from the story relatively easily, he has always been a bit of a strange fit, but the problems with these films don't just stem from bits cut out entirely, the stem from having part of the heart of the books corrupted or watered down. Theoden goes from the powerful warrior king of the Rohirrim to the weak-willed old man of the films, even AFTER Gandalf pulls him out of the spell. He's petty and panicky, and he doesn't come off as the leader he should be in the Two Towers. Aragorn has uncertainty injected into his character, along with the whole "I don't want my destiny" theme. Frodo has most of his greatness stripped from him, and the inner nobility of his spirit is pretty much excised wholesale. Faramir is turned into a complete wuss, talk about lack of greatness. There are many, many more. And Denethor....Denethor...you say the change to him doesn't matter? He goes from a complex, compelling character, a character who your heart really goes out to, who is interesting and utterly indicative of the wider world that Tolkien created, and Jackson turns him into a crazy, evil old man. It's all of these things that change the tone of the films, subtly but critically.
I understand WHY they made these changes. Heck, Jackson discusses it in his commentaries, but the end results are a greatly lessened story and much weaker characters. You see, they felt that the stakes of the ending of the world weren't enough to create the drama of the story, so they also needed to have soap opera drama like Aragorn's crisis of faith, Theoden's rejection of wisdom, etc. They wouldn't let great characters be great, because of the belief that the modern world can't accept greatness. Because of that idea, we're left with mediocrity. Cat, you say it could have been worse? Well, I believe you, but that doesn't mean that I can stomach the Hollywood-ized version that we received. Some stories are too good to be "fixed" for whatever reason, and the Lord of the Rings is one of them. There is that within the books that these movies capture very well, but there is also that within them which is missing on the screen, and the movies are poorer for its absence.
I don't like most of those changes either, Benton, I just think what remains has enough good about it to still be quite good as a whole. But most of those changes happen in Fellowship or Two Towers: Theoden's uncertainty, Aragorn's rejection of his fate, Faramir's mediocrity. All three of those characters, I would argue, get some greatness restored in RotK - Theoden goes to his final battle with absolute certainty; Aragorn assumes his destiny and never falters; Faramir Frodo is an ongoing problem - his most heroic moments through all three movies have been handed off to other characters, and he's gullible and trusting - with none of the wisdom Tolkien subscribes to him until the film's very end. These issues plague all three LotR films, and I accept them as faults and move on.
Denethor's treatment is one of my biggest problems with RotK; one of the most complex characters in the book gets reduced to a crazy, bitter old man. That said - it doesn't really matter to the larger story.
This line of yours: "There is that within the books that these movies capture very well, but there is also that within them which is missing on the screen, and the movies are poorer for its absence," I think is entirely true; but I think it's true for almost every movie adaptation of another source. The Lord of the Rings could have been better; that said, I think they achieve a measure of the book's greatness, warts and all.
Part of the problem here, and part of what makes great literature so great, is that we read into it a reflection of ourselves. We each see the same story in different way, picture the characters in our own vision. When a film is made, the filmakers have to boil the story and its characters down to it's essence. That is not going to be the same for everybody. For me, the LoTR films are about as perfect an adaptation as you can get. It is likely then that what I see in the characters and story is essentially the same as the film makers. Benton has a completely different perspective on it, which the filmakers do not share, so he sees something very different form the story he knows and loves, while I see exactly the same story I know and love. This is a problem that is unresolvable.
Fair enough Talavar. That is something I can respect. I thought you were saying that these changes were insignificant to the soul of the story, and they are not, even if they don't affect the nuts and bolts business of the plot. I see what you're saying now. If you can still enjoy the films despite their flaws, 'warts and all' as you said, well and good.
Ehh Cat, the mixture of self and author that creates meaning is something that's been debated since before Aristotle. Let's say that I'm more Platonic in my thinking than is fashionable these days. Do readers have a part in the creation of meaning? Of course, but I've always seen something else that is concrete in literature, meaning that is there whether a given reader sees it or not. The rejection of that idea is part of how the folks in my field talked themselves out of jobs. ;) That said, if Peter Jackson and co. were just following a different interpretation of the text, that I could live with more easily. The changes they made were, for the most part, made for the worst of reasons. Thus they gall me even more. Yes, filmaking requires adjustments of the texts adapted to the medium, but adapting and co-opting are different things. I'd argue that the LotR films are an example of the latter, as are most of the Narnia films. It's the difference between The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian. Anyway, Cat and I see the world differently, so barring some personality switching, Saturday-morning-cartoon-esq head injury, I imagine that we will have to agree to disagree here.
Ummm... not to rain on everyone's parade here, but I think we've gotten WAY off topic here. The point of this thread is the Hobbit... and I don't see how any of the minor changes that happened much later in the story affect the prequel, nor do I see them repeating the "mistakes" you guys are discussing. If the point of the changes was to inject flaws to make things more relateable, then Hobbit does not require change... from my admittedly distant recollection, most of the characters already are flawed. One of the major moral lessons toward the end of the book is how nonsensical war actually is, and the entire 5 zillion armies war at the end of the book begins entirely out of the selfishness of several of the title characters. If ANYTHING, I see Jackson going in the complete opposite direction... making the characters seem more noble so we'll actually root for them at the end even when they're fighting a war over pointless greed.
Not to mention they have two movies over one short book as opposed to one movie per long book, so they aren't likely to actually leave much out. In fact, they are adding a lot of the behind the scenes event revealed in LoTR and elsewhere back in. Of course, some fans aren't going to like that. I also suspect that the movie version of the Hobbit will lose the books light tone and be more in keeping with the later books.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on January 01, 2012, 08:30:24 PM
Not to mention they have two movies over one short book as opposed to one movie per long book, so they aren't likely to actually leave much out. In fact, they are adding a lot of the behind the scenes event revealed in LoTR and elsewhere back in. Of course, some fans aren't going to like that. I also suspect that the movie version of the Hobbit will lose the books light tone and be more in keeping with the later books.
Emphasis added. It seems to me that it's almost inevitable.
Well, yeah, the movie will be aimed at fans at the LoTR movies, who will be expecting the same tone and style. In fact, and in reading about the series recently, it is repeatedly noted that people reading the Hobbit then LoTR, or even reverse often find the change in tone and theme to actually be quite jarring and often find themselves disliking the changes if they liked what they read first. In real life, there was just a large amount of time between the books so the children who ready the Hobbit were adults by the time LoTR was written.
For a move, this just wouldn't work. The two have to be brought into line with each other. You can already see some of this in the trailer with Gandalf and Thoren basically bargaining Bilbo's life away and the rather ominous conversation with Bilbo right after that scene.
If you prefer the original's tone, there's always the old cartoon. It had some pretty good music too. Come to think of it, they also did Return of the King (but not the other ones) so you might enjoy that too.
I agree that the tonal shift is inevitable; I also think it can work. After all, a lot of serious, important things happen during the Hobbit's time frame, some of which Bilbo was simply unaware of (The expulsion of the 'Necromancer' from Dol Guldur; Gandalf's motivation in helping the dwarves in the first place - dealing with Smaug).
Also the retaking of the Dale and Erebor was vitally important in the LoTR as well, since those two kingdoms manage to hold off an assault from Sauron's forces, while the Wood Elves and the Beornings hold Mirkwood, preventing several of Sauran's allies from joining the battle against Gondor and elsewhere. None of this is shown in LoTR, of course, but it nonetheless is important.
Whether Gandalf had any idea that this would be so vital later on, I do not know.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on January 02, 2012, 11:29:51 PM
Whether Gandalf had any idea that this would be so vital later on, I do not know.
From comments in the LotR and other places, I think it's safe to say that Gandalf strongly suspected who the Necromancer was and was trying to prepare as well as possible for the next rising of the Shadow. So, I think it's likely that he looked to the establishment of as many "good" kingdoms as possible as being a good way to help oppose Sauron's next rise.
So... anyone else think it's odd that Martin Freeman's Bilbo will be standing up against a Smaug played by Benedict Cumberbatch(who, BTW, is also playing the Necromancer)?
Yes
(For those who don't know, those are the same actors who play Watson and Holmes respectively in Sherlock)
Randomly rechecked the release date on the first film... am I the only one who completely missed that they're making 3 movies now?
Quote from: Tomato on October 20, 2012, 07:33:45 AM
Randomly rechecked the release date on the first film... am I the only one who completely missed that they're making 3 movies now?
I heard about it and have to shake my head a little - with filling in the blanks for certain characters like Gandalf, I could see 2 movies. I just don't see how 3 can be anything but a stretch. Hopefully I'm wrong.
From what I understand, the decision to make it 3 movies came about while Jackson was trying to cut the footage not used for part one into part 2 and found he had so much that he just decided to make another two movies out of it.
At least this means they aren't likely to be leaving anything out.
Urg.
Quote from: Tomato on October 20, 2012, 07:33:45 AM
Randomly rechecked the release date on the first film... am I the only one who completely missed that they're making 3 movies now?
My cousin mentioned this and I didn't believe it, as I had heard it was to be two movies. I was looking up Benedict Cumberbatch on IMDB and noticed the three Hobbit movies listed for him (2012, 2013, and 2014). I believe "ugh" was my response. The only way this will work is if Jackson makes the duration of each of these movies last in the two hour range. Then, we're still looking at six total hours of film. I know that one of the criticisms of the LoTR movies (at least, for those who hadn't read the books) was the barely endurable three and half hour run times. I am concerned that there is going to be a whole bunch of filler.
That's incredible... two (or three) movies out of one book?
To be honest, that really makes me far less enthusiastic about 'The Hobbit'.
Tolkien fans are going to go in expecting the whole thing, not just a poor excuse to capitalize on a sequel or two. Somebody's forgetting the subtitle of that book: "There and Back Again". Sounds like the first movie should be titled: "The Hobbit: Are We There Yet?".
Just for fun, though, what would you consider cutting if you were directing 'The Hobbit' and had to make it one movie?
If it were me, I think I'd try to condense the plot like so:
Spoiler
Bilbo joins the dwarves, despite himself; Gandalf reveals the secrets of Lonely Mountain (which removes the need to visit Rivendell)
Sadly, we drop the encounter with the trolls (unless of course this story was retold in the movie trilogy, which I haven't seen).
While passing through the Misty Mountains, the party is attacked by goblins and driven underground into the goblin tunnels. Bilbo is separated from them, finds the Ring, and outwits Gollum. The party escapes with the help of the eagles, who are summoned by Gandalf. (We cut the ents) Gandolf takes them as far as Mirkwood and then departs on his mysterious errand. (We cut Beorn and above all we do not make any side-trip to explain why Gandalf is leaving.)
The party is attacked by giant spiders while passing through Mirkwood but are rescued by the wood elves. The elves decide to imprison the dwarves for ransom. Bilbo escapes the elves by turning invisible, and helps the dwarves escape the elves' dungeon by hiding in casks and floating down the river.
The river carries them to Lake-town. From there, they go to the Lonely Mountain and quickly find the secret entrance. Bilbo encounters Smaug. Smaug tries to get at Bilbo and the dwarves, but frustrated in the attempt he attacks Lake-town instead. Bilbo tells a thrush about Smaug's weakness and sends it to warn the town. Bard kills Smaug.
Set up the conflict between the Men, the Dwarves, and the Elves over Smaug's treasure. Goblins and wargs attack. With the help of Gandalf and the eagles, the goblins and wargs are defeated. Thorin dies. Bilbo gives most of his share of the treasure to the Men to rebuild after Smaug's attack and then goes home.
I'm not sure that condensed plot does the book justice, but it might've been enough to keep it down to one (long) movie.
I'll grant that if the director tried to be faithful to the book, he couldn't help but turn it into two shorter movies. Finding a good logical break would be difficult, but if I had to I'd say that the first movie would end with the party making it to Beorn's and then picking the story back up at Mirkwood in the next.
You haven't seen the LoTR trilogy? Honestly, you should watch it before making any judgement about this, because frankly it shows such love and respect for the books that it really would radically alter your perspective on this. Sure it seems odd to make 3 movies out of this, but Peter Jackson's already proven himself on this, so I'm willing to trust him on this.
Also the movie going audience is going to expect to films to be primarily a prequel to the LoTR trilogy rather than something mostly separate like it is, so they are adding in the appendices which took place during the time of the Hobbit to tie everything together.
What this means is we won't be skipping much of anything, so I still have high hopes for it. Also I suspect the films will be much shorter than the LoTR films.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on December 13, 2012, 04:20:31 PM
You haven't seen the LoTR trilogy? Honestly, you should watch it before making any judgement about this, because frankly it shows such love and respect for the books that it really would radically alter your perspective on this. Sure it seems odd to make 3 movies out of this, but Peter Jackson's already proven himself on this, so I'm willing to trust him on this.
Also the movie going audience is going to expect to films to be primarily a prequel to the LoTR trilogy rather than something mostly separate like it is, so they are adding in the appendices which took place during the time of the Hobbit to tie everything together.
What this means is we won't be skipping much of anything, so I still have high hopes for it. Also I suspect the films will be much shorter than the LoTR films.
I think that is
highly debatable Cat. If you're talking about the first movie, yeah, that's very true. When you talk about the second one it becomes less true, but by the third one Jackson and crew display open contempt for their source material. You can hear the progression in the commentaries. At first he's talking about "Tolkien's story," "Tolkien's vision," "Tolkien's world," but it gradually becomes "my vision," "my world."
I'll never forgive the guy for
Return of the King. I have zero confidence in him making a faithful adaptation, or even three good movies.
Everyone, take a breath here. Movie comes out tomorrow, go see it, THEN whine like a two year old girl about the changes they've made.
Quote from: Tomato on December 13, 2012, 09:45:48 PM
Everyone, take a breath here. Movie comes out tomorrow, go see it, THEN whine like a two year old girl about the changes they've made.
No thanks, I prefer to stay embittered against Peter Jackson and skip the movie altogether. That's much more like a crotchety old man than a two year old girl. Don't be silly.
It seems funny to me that the 'you can't complain about/judge it until you see it' argument is used for this type of thing. Yeah, that's a legitimate argument if you haven't seen a director's previous efforts, but if you've seen enough to form an opinion, I think you're pretty wise not to spend your money on something you don't expect to like.
Even Return of the King is pretty good. Compare it to pretty much ever other adaptation ever made and it's pretty faithful. Sorry, Benton, but I quite strongly dissagree with you here.
It's entirely possible that you, not having enjoyed his previous work, will hate these films too. Personally though, I have good reason to be excited for these films. Martin Freeman as Bilbo? Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug AND Necromancer/Sauron? Full renditions of songs like "Misty Mountains Cold"? Yes please.
I could not care less that Peter Jackson is directing it.
I absolutely love their version of "Misty Mountains Cold" and hope at least some of the other songs make it too.
An author and webcartoonist I respect (Howard Taylor, of Schlock Mercenary) seemed to like (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey-movie-review) the first installment of 'The Hobbit'. (No real spoilers there, in case you're wondering.)
So maybe I'll give it a chance when it comes out on DVD. Totally not going to spend theater money to decide whether I can deal with a three-part Hobbit.
And I'm sticking with my personal re-title: "The Hobbit: Are We There Yet?". That will probably be the title I give the second one, too. The third one I will tentatively call: "The Hobbit: There and Back, Finally."
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on December 14, 2012, 05:58:04 AM
Even Return of the King is pretty good. Compare it to pretty much ever other adaptation ever made and it's pretty faithful. Sorry, Benton, but I quite strongly dissagree with you here.
Well Cat, we'll have to agree to disagree. It boggles my mind how folks (and you are, obviously, far from alone) can really enjoy RoTK, even just as a movie. As an adaptation, what Jackson did to Denethor, Faramir, and the entirety of the Battle of Pelennor Fields was unforgivable. I just don't see it. Ahh well, I hope that Jackson does better with
the Hobbit, if only because the material deserves it. Bon chance!
Went it saw it yesterday. It's been many years since I read the book, but it seems pretty intact. The movie ends right after the rescue by the eagles. The music from LotR returns. A little over two and a half hours. Did NOT see the 3D version. Not that big on it in the 1st place, plus I heard that some is the action was so quick that people were getting nauseous from it. Probably the escape from the orcs scene since there's a lot camera flying around there.
Since it was early show, the tickets were only $6.5 each and the theatre was about half full.
All in all, I enjoyed it, but for the next 2 I'll probably wait till the dvd comes out instead.
Changed from the book (from what I remember)
Spoiler
Bilbo wakes up the morning after and decides to join on his own, running after the dwarves. From what I recall, Gandalf was the one who rushed him out the door.
The hankerchief scene is there but changed.
Thorin is much more dismissive of Bilbo.
With the trolls, instead of Gandalf delaying the trolls till morning by arguing, it was Bilbo
In the Misty Mountains, Gandalf is not there during the night or when the dwarves are captured. He shows up and rescues the dwarves and they escape. Bilbo is seperated from the dwarves right after the capture, not when they are escaping.
Gollum doesn't go out to his island to get the ring and find it missing then.
The "15 birds" song is missing.
Added to the story
Spoiler
There's a whole new subplot about an ongoing vendetta between Thorin and a large white orc.
Part of the backstory tells how Thorin got the the name "Oakenshield"
The story actually starts right before the great party and is told in flashback. Frodo makes a cameo.
Radagast the brown has a greatly expanded presense. I had pictured more as a ranger type, but instead they went for a comedy relief version.
The necromancer backstory is fleshed out including a council of the wise with Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman and Galadrial.